Practicum Week : 11

Date: 25th September 2021

Journal Topic : Revisiting The Issue of Fifth Week (Passive students are
overshadowed by active students)

1.0 Isu Yang Difokuskan

This was my eleventh week in SJK(C) Lok Yuk Likas. Therefore, I will revisit the issue
that I had addressed during the fifth week which was regarding student’s dominant in the
classroom. I had tried to implement all the suggestions that I had brought forward during
the fifth week. The suggestions were as below:

• Teacher calls out name randomly or picked from the rolls of name lists prepared
beforehand to answer the questions.

• Teacher creates more group work activities and put one dominant students in each
group.

• Teacher encourage other students to participate by asking, “Who has another view
about this?” or “What do those of you on the right (left) side of the room think?” (Junn,
1994)

• When asking questions, teacher increases the “wait time” before calling on a student.
This allows more students time to formulate an answer. (Nunn, 1996)

• Teacher creates an “Achievement Board” and gives stars to students who contribute
and towards the end of the semester, will reward the students with most stars.

• Teacher starts focusing on other students as well, especially students who sit at the
back of the classroom.

• Teacher gives rewards to pupils who answer questions.

Based on the implementation, I had received various impacts and responses from the
students. The most effective way was by using the name rolls which had opened
chances to all students as teacher/students picked the names randomly. By this, the
dominant students had less opportunities to dominate the activities. On the other hand,
the least effective way was by increasing the “wait time” before calling on a student to
allow more time for students to formulate an answer. I believed that the ineffectiveness
of the suggestion was due to how I implemented it myself. I had given too short of time
for students to think during the “wait time", hence the effect of the implementation was
not visible to the targeted students. Some students could not answer the questions and
seemed to be nervous and unsure of their answers. As a result, the same students got to
answer the questions. Therefore, this journal aims to analyse the problems regarding this
implementation.

2.0 Analisis Yang Difokuskan

According to Teacher Vision (2015), wait time is the period of silence between the time a
question is asked and the time when one or more students respond to that question. The
concept of "wait-time" as an instructional variable was invented by Mary Budd Rowe
(1972). The "wait-time" periods she found--periods of silence that followed teacher
questions and students' completed responses--rarely lasted more than 1.5 seconds in
typical classrooms. She discovered, however, that when these periods of silence lasted
at least 3 seconds, many positive things happened to students' and teachers' behaviours
and attitudes. To attain these benefits, teachers were urged to "wait" in silence for 3 or
more seconds after their questions, and after students completed their responses
(Casteel and Stahl, 1973; Rowe 1972; Stahl 1990; Tobin 1987). For example, when
students are given 3 or more seconds of undisturbed "wait-time," there are certain
positive outcomes:

• The length and correctness of their responses increase.

• The number of their "I don't know" and no answer responses decreases.

• The number of volunteered, appropriate answers by larger numbers of students greatly

increases.

• The scores of students on academic achievement tests tend to increase.

• When teachers wait patiently in silence for 3 or more seconds at appropriate places,
positive changes in their own teacher behaviours also occur:

• Their questioning strategies tend to be more varied and flexible.

• They decrease the quantity and increase the quality and variety of their questions.

• They ask additional questions that require more complex information processing and
higher-level thinking on the part of students.

3.0 Kajian Lampau (Literature Review) Terhadap Isu (Pengalaman tau Kajian
Lepas)

According to Simonds & Cooper (2014): “The convention is to use 3 seconds as the
minimum time period because this time length represents a significant break-through (or
threshold) point: after at least 3 seconds, a significant number of very positive things
happen to students and teachers. The concern here is not that 2.9 seconds is bad, while
3 seconds is good, and 5.3 seconds of silence is even better. The concern is to provide
the period of time that will most effectively assist nearly every student to complete the
cognitive tasks needed in the particular situation. The teacher's job is to manage and
guide what occurs prior to and immediately following each period of silence so that the
processing that needs to occur is completed.” In 1972, Mary Budd Rowe published a
paper summarising five years of study into wait times. She observed that when teachers
allowed at least 3 seconds of wait time, there were a number of positive changes in the
classroom. “There are increases in the length of the response, the number of unsolicited
appropriate responses, student confidence, incidence of speculative responses,
incidence of child-child data comparisons, incidence of evidence-inference statements,
frequency of student questions, and incidence of responses from “relatively slow”
students. The number of teacher questions which do not elicit a response decreases.” By
waiting longer for a response, a teacher will involve more class members, get better
quality answers and students are more likely to ask their own questions. This will also
likely to involve all students rather than the dominating students only, hence increase the
participation of all students in classroom.
 4.0 Cadangan dan Idea Penyelesaian Masalah

Therefore, in the future, when I ask a question, I would not preface it with a student's
name, for example, “Ain, where does the snake live?” This will lead to passive responses
from other students as I pick one student's name, all the other brains in the room
immediately shut down. The other students will be saying to themselves, “We don't have
to think now because Ain is going to answer the question.” Instead, I will ask the
question, wait, and then ask for a response. This might result to heightened level of
involvement from the students. Everyone has to think about a response because nobody
knows who will be called on to respond. Besides, the responses will be considerably
better and there will be more group thinking. Secondly, I will give more time for the pupils
to think before asking for a response. This depends on the complexity of the question,
the ability of the students and the clarity with which the question was asked. In general,
recall and lower-level questions will take most students 1-3 seconds to answer. Higher-
order questions that require more thought than the simple recall questions, could take
anywhere from 6 to 10 seconds to formulate a reply. By this, I will at the same time
encouraging the pupils to think and to construct better answers. In that way, they will be
more confident to answer the questions and to participate in the classroom activities.

5.0 Tempoh Masa Penyelesaian: 1 week

6.0 Tindakan Sususlan

In the future, I will be more serious in implementing the “wait time” strategy. This is
because, not only it will give the passive students more opportunities, it will also boost
the students’ confidence in answering the questions. As a conclusion, information
processing involves multiple cognitive tasks that take time. Students must have
uninterrupted periods of time to process information; reflect on what has been said,
observed, or done; and consider what their personal responses will be.

Rujukan

Casteel, J. D. & Stahl, R. J. (1973). The social science observation record (ssor):
Theoretical construct and pilot studies. Gainesville, FL : P. K. Yonge Laboratory.

School, 1973. Junn, E. (1994). "Pearls of wisdom": Enhancing student class participation
with an innovative exercise. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 21, 385-387.

Nunn, C. E. (1996). Discussion in the college classroom: Triangulating observational and

survey results. The Journal of Higher Education, 243-266. Rowe, M. B. (1972). Wait-
time and rewards as instructional variables: Their influence on language, logic, and
fate Control in Resources in Education, Education Resources Information Center.
Simonds, C. J. & Cooper, P. J. (2014). Communication for the Classroom Teacher.

Allyn & Bacon of Pearson Education Ltd: Glenview, USA. Stahl, R. J. (1990). Using "think-
time" behaviours to promote students' information processing, learning, and on-task
participation: An instructional module. Tempe, AZ: Arizona State University, 1990.
Teacher

Vision. (2015). Your secret weapon: Wait time, teaching methods and strategies. Retrieved
from https://www.teachervision.com/teaching-methods/new- teacher/48446.html

Tobin, K. (1987). The role of wait time in higher cognitive level learning. Review of
Educational Research 57 (Spring 1987): 69-95. EJ 371 356.